Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

flamming_python wrote:Yep I agree, the APC's carrying capacity is amoebic, if the report of a 8-man capacity is true then nothing justifies it. The turret doesn't (or shouldn't) go into the hull; all that space should be free, and the actual vehicle is high, long and wide.
Should carry 10-11 at the very LEAST. That's to say a full squad and preferably extra space for 1-2 as well and/or ammo/supplies.

Russia is not really taking seriously USA . Is relying too much in their nuclear weapons

KoTeMoRe wrote:

flamming_python wrote:Yep I agree, the APC's carrying capacity is amoebic, if the report of a 8-man capacity is true then nothing justifies it. The turret doesn't (or shouldn't) go into the hull; all that space should be free, and the actual vehicle is high, long and wide.
Should carry 10-11 at the very LEAST. That's to say a full squad and preferably extra space for 1-2 as well and/or ammo/supplies.

Jesus the BMP-3 has a 7-men fire team. This is based on the BMP-3 with a new arraignement, engine in front, thicker armour, retains the sponsons that make the rear area really tight. Why in the world are you surprized. Once again, this has less to do with IFV or APC variant, it has to do with the limitations coming from the transformation of an existing model.

Relax, check the pictures...

flamming_python wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

flamming_python wrote:Yep I agree, the APC's carrying capacity is amoebic, if the report of a 8-man capacity is true then nothing justifies it. The turret doesn't (or shouldn't) go into the hull; all that space should be free, and the actual vehicle is high, long and wide.
Should carry 10-11 at the very LEAST. That's to say a full squad and preferably extra space for 1-2 as well and/or ammo/supplies.

Jesus the BMP-3 has a 7-men fire team. This is based on the BMP-3 with a new arraignement, engine in front, thicker armour, retains the sponsons that make the rear area really tight. Why in the world are you surprized. Once again, this has less to do with IFV or APC variant, it has to do with the limitations coming from the transformation of an existing model.

Relax, check the pictures...

The BMP-3 is an IFV, it's small and cramped and the turret mechanism and operator go down all the way into the hull.
Nevetheless, it's capacity of 7 men is perfectly adequate for an IFV-class vehicle.

I'm talking about APCs.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

flamming_python wrote:Yep I agree, the APC's carrying capacity is amoebic, if the report of a 8-man capacity is true then nothing justifies it. The turret doesn't (or shouldn't) go into the hull; all that space should be free, and the actual vehicle is high, long and wide.
Should carry 10-11 at the very LEAST. That's to say a full squad and preferably extra space for 1-2 as well and/or ammo/supplies.

Jesus the BMP-3 has a 7-men fire team. This is based on the BMP-3 with a new arraignement, engine in front, thicker armour, retains the sponsons that make the rear area really tight. Why in the world are you surprized. Once again, this has less to do with IFV or APC variant, it has to do with the limitations coming from the transformation of an existing model.

Relax, check the pictures...

The BMP-3 is an IFV, it's small and cramped and the turret mechanism and operator go down all the way into the hull.
Nevetheless, it's capacity of 7 men is perfectly adequate for an IFV-class vehicle.

I'm talking about APCs.

Again the BMP has the same limitations because of its engine and sponsons. This vehicle retains the same flaws. Has a front mounted engine that puts the driver quite aback from the original BMP position. Therefore retaining a relatively conservative space for troops. The troop compartiment is barely more spacious, be that on the IVF or the APC variant. And it also retains the sponsons in front which nullify every attempt to gain more space. There's nothing new in here.
Nevermind the gear for the fireteam has almost doubled and doctrine allows for more firepower.

Armenian wrote:8 men with the Ratnik equipment and gear need as much space as 10-12 men with the old gear.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Armenian wrote:8 men with the Ratnik equipment and gear need as much space as 10-12 men with the old gear.

If it had the same sillouhette as the previous BMPs then I'd agree, but the Kurganets APC approaches the same bulkiness of western AFVs, hell it's almost the same size as the BTR-50 which carried more than a dozen men if my memory serves me correctly. Although it can be said that the kurganets APC(NOT IFV) would carry less than the BTR-50 of the same size due to increased armor  having twice as less troops is just to little.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Armenian wrote:8 men with the Ratnik equipment and gear need as much space as 10-12 men with the old gear.

If it had the same sillouhette as the previous BMPs then I'd agree, but the Kurganets APC approaches the same bulkiness of western AFVs, hell it's almost the same size as the BTR-50 which carried more than a dozen men if my memory serves me correctly. Although it can be said that the kurganets APC(NOT IFV) would carry less than the BTR-50 of the same size due to increased armor  having twice as less troops is just to little.

Obviously you haven't seen the troop compartiment of the former BMP's...nor their protection level of inherent structural trade-offs.

collegeboy16 wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Armenian wrote:8 men with the Ratnik equipment and gear need as much space as 10-12 men with the old gear.

If it had the same sillouhette as the previous BMPs then I'd agree, but the Kurganets APC approaches the same bulkiness of western AFVs, hell it's almost the same size as the BTR-50 which carried more than a dozen men if my memory serves me correctly. Although it can be said that the kurganets APC(NOT IFV) would carry less than the BTR-50 of the same size due to increased armor  having twice as less troops is just to little.

Obviously you haven't seen the troop compartiment of the former BMP's...nor their protection level of inherent structural trade-offs.

yeah, there are nice design choices like a fuel tank in the doors, a mini version of the microwave hallway in mgs4 as primary exit, ammo in the same space as everyone, and seats that are only slightly better off than squatting, etc.

the fewer number of passengers is ok, since compared to your run-of-the-mill conscript back then the soldier now is operator as fck.

Flanky wrote:Are they developing also a light tank version of the Boomerang?
Kind of Stryker MGS...
Personally i think be it not for the Stryker poor terrain performance and reliability issues... the MGS would be a good idea.
Wheeled chassis have lower maintenance costs, not so bad enviroment impact and is faster, thus providing more responsiveness to urgent deployment situations....

Flanky wrote:Well Russians have Sprut that is true however it is a tracked platform. It is ideal in regular conflicts but in Guerilla wars like those in Chechniya you need speed and responsiveness more than crosscountry capability.
I mean mobility is important that said wheeled platform is cheaper for maintenance and much faster. Regarding the MGS it is used as supporting platform for ground operations against insurgency and guerillas...
Russians would be good to have an equivalent of this... Sprut could be used but its caterpilars are not good for the roads, it consumes too much of fuel, maintenance is much harder and so on....

according to military experts, the most likely option arrangement cannon "Boomerang" will be like the tank "Armata": a fully automated uninhabited turret. It is likely that the tank sighting systems and means of active protection will be unified with the main battle tank.

Different assumptions about the gun are made, but most likely, it will be carried out on the option 2A75, which is used in the 2S25 "Sprut-SD '. Thanks to that, the "Boomerang-Tank" firepower will be equal to the T-90A, which in principle, will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the combat missions for combined arms teams.

flamming_python wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

The BMP-3 is an IFV, it's small and cramped and the turret mechanism and operator go down all the way into the hull.
Nevetheless, it's capacity of 7 men is perfectly adequate for an IFV-class vehicle.

I'm talking about APCs.

The best is 9 dismount soldiers. 3 teams of 3 soldiers in each, plus squad leader.
But 7 might be ok too. We can have 2 by 3, or 3 by 2, plus commander.

IFV shouldn't take dismount soldiers, only the APC should do that, the IFV is for fighting only.
It will be the escort guy for the APC.

AJ-47 wrote:

Nice Pic. The turret looks like the turret on the ATOM.

Cyberspec wrote:A couple of older projects for 'wheeled tank'

Zhalo (Sting) - 85mm gun on BTR-70


Sprut-K - 125mm gun on BTR-90

according to military experts, the most likely option arrangement cannon "Boomerang" will be like the tank "Armata": a fully automated uninhabited turret. It is likely that the tank sighting systems and means of active protection will be unified with the main battle tank.

Different assumptions about the gun are made, but most likely, it will be carried out on the option 2A75, which is used in the 2S25 "Sprut-SD '. Thanks to that, the "Boomerang-Tank" firepower will be equal to the T-90A, which in principle, will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the combat missions for combined arms teams.

Source: http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-12163.htm

Vann7 wrote:
Indeed , i see a lot of potential in arming an apc with a heavy gun ,that can be operated either with 1 man or if the place dangerous ,dismount and control it by control remote. Imagine a boomeran with a 152mm gun ,with only 10 rounds ,that its only role is as tank destroyer and perhaps a light machine gun mounted for defense against militants near the tank..trying to capture it..

according to wikipedia the T-90ms price is near $5 millions..  if Russia can build a purely offensive APC with a Huge deadly 152mm tank Gun.. and with a limited protection only for 30mm rounds in the front. that will cut cost dramatically ,and for example make 10-15 of them for every T-14 they build..  

The psychological effect that this will have on the enemies on the battlefield will be huge..
because Russia for example could build 50,000 of them. and each one of them with the capability to destroy any modern tank in the west.   So you could send 3 Boomerans controlled remote again 1 western tank.. and it will overwhelm it.. with a T-14 manually operated behind ,. and best of all without spending much money..and even if hit ,no loss of life and should be easy to repair.. for having low ammo and not much technology .

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

Flanky wrote:Well Russians have Sprut that is true however it is a tracked platform. It is ideal in regular conflicts but in Guerilla wars like those in Chechniya you need speed and responsiveness more than crosscountry capability.
I mean mobility is important that said wheeled platform is cheaper for maintenance and much faster. Regarding the MGS it is used as supporting platform for ground operations against insurgency and guerillas...
Russians would be good to have an equivalent of this... Sprut could be used but its caterpilars are not good for the roads, it consumes too much of fuel, maintenance is much harder and so on....

Flanky, just because the U.S. Ground Forces possess such a vehicle, does not mean the Russian Ground Forces suddenly need one.

Such thought is consistent with shills that instantly think the Russian Forces now requires something similar to what the U.S. fields in it's inventories.

If you believe that the Russian Armed Forces require something of the likes of the Stryker MGS, then I suggest you go here: http://www.f-16.net/

There you find all sorts of like-minded peers.

Again, the reason why the U.S. Ground Forces procured such a vehicle was to fill a gap, a gap that has never existed in the Soviet or Russian Ground Forces.